CEGE Thesis Manuscript

(NEW FORMAT WITH JOURNAL PAPER)

FOR BOOKBINDING

Template and Instructions

General Contents

1. Title Page

Authors

Degree

School

Year

2. Approval Sheet

3. Acknowledgement

4. Table of Contents

5. List of Figures

6. List of Tables

7. List of Acronyms

8. (The Article/Journal as the main component of the thesis)

9. Appendices

Below is a SAMPLE Thesis from mixed sources:

.....................................................................................................................................................
 Strength Analysis of Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Compressed Earth Block (GFRCEB)

by

Bien Marlo S. De Torres

Eidref Joseph M. Paz
Paulo S. Remulla

A Thesis submitted to the School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering in

Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (pls update this)

Mapùa University
March 2018
(pls update this to be “after defense but before graduation” to be realistic)
Note: Always check the
Program Title (e.g.
Construction Engineering
and Management) in all
the documents such as in
the Approval Sheet.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers would like to extend their sincerest gratitude and appreciation to the

following people for their untiring support and guidance as we complete every part of this

research paper.

First and foremost, to their advisor and counselor, Engr. Flordeliza C. Villasenor, as

adviser and counselor, for her never-ending support and guidance as the researchers conduct

this study. Without the knowledge and methods that she shared to them during the research

phase, the research paper would be senseless and dull. Her remarks and insights about the

research topic contributed a lot as we try to fully develop the research paper;

Engr. Jomar T. Sotayco - their mentor, for sharing their knowledge about this study

to the researchers. For giving the researchers tips and techniques to accomplish this study. For

providing their support and equipment for this study;

Saniya Resort & Hotel – for lending the researchers the place needed in this study,

and for providing transportation, resources and assistance;

Prof. Edward Jay M. Quinto – for helping the researchers with the editing of the

reports of this study;

Their families and friends – for continuous supporting and guiding as the researchers

construct the entire process of this research. For indirectly providing the researchers motivation

and inspiration.

To the Almighty God, for giving the researchers a fulfilling life and blessing them with

wisdom and knowledge in necessary for the completion of this study.

B. M. S. D

E.J.M.P

P.S.R

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL SHEET ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ARTICLE TYPE

ABSTRACT 1

INTRODUCTION 1

METHODOLOGY 2

Materials and Samples Preparation 2

Materials Procurement 2

Soil Testing 2

CEB and GFRCEB Production 3

Mixing 3

Compressing 4

Curing 5

Testing of Samples 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 7

Compressive Strength Results and Discussion 7

Flexural Strength of Results and Discussion 8

Cost Analysis 10

iv
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10

REFERENCES 11

APPENDICES [pages until heading of Appendices only] 15

Appendix A Thesis Manuscript Conventional Format [insert single spaced

version of manuscript only]

Appendix B Soil Test Results

Appendix C Compressive Test Results

Appendix D Flexural Test Results

Appendix E Evaluation Rubrics of Panel Members (Proposal & Final)

Appendix F Evaluation Rubrics of Adviser (Proposal & Final)

Appendix G Billing Form (Proposal & Final)

Appendix H Official Receipt (O.R.) of Billing (Proposal & Final)

Appendix I Conformity of Revisions

Appendix J Author Agreement Form

Appendix K Photocopy of Other Receipts

Appendix L Turnitin Results

Appendix M Project Poster

Appendix N Proof of Correspondence with Scopus Journal Publisher

Appendix O Proof of Journal in www.scopus.com

Appendix P Student Reflections

Appendix Q Curriculum Vitae

NOTE:
In the APPENDICES:
Green = Required Documents
Red = Other Important Output of the research
Gold = Optional Information

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Result of Visual-Manual and Laboratory Test on Soil 3

Table 2: Proportion of Compressed Earth Blocks 3

Table 3: Average Result of Compressive Strength 7

Table 4: Average Result of Flexural Strength 8

Table 5: Cost Estimation of Compressed Earth Blocks 10

Table 6: 1m x 1m Surface Area Cost Comparison 10

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sieving of Soil using a 2-mm. Wire Mesh 3

Figure 2: Mixing of Compressed Earth Block Samples 4

Figure 3: Process of Producing Samples 4

Figure 4: Curing of Samples 5

Figure 5: Compressive Test and Flexural Test of CEB, GFRCEB, and CHB 6

Figure 6: 7th, 14th, and 28th Day Compressive Strength Comparison 7

between CEB and GFRCEB

Figure 7: 28th Day Compressive Strength Comparison 8

Figure 8: 7th, 14th, and 28th Day Flexural Strength Comparison 9

between CEB and GFRCEB

Figure 9: 28th Day Flexural Strength Comparison 9

vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS

viii
 Strength Analysis of Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Compressed Earth Block (GFRCEB)

B. M. S. De Torres1, E. J. M. Paz1, P. S. Remulla1, and F.C. Villaseñor1,*

1
School of Civil, Environmental, & Geological Engineering,
Mapúa University, Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines
1
bien.detorres@yahoo.com
1
ejpaz04@gmail.com
1
remullapaulo@gmail.com
*Corresponding Author E-mail: 1fcv707@yahoo.com

Abstract— Concrete masonry buildings have been the focus of the Philippine construction
industry. However, the development of other existing building materials with technology are
still in demand. Most of them aim to create a stronger and more serviceable building materials
that will cater to the demand of the public. This paper aims to develop a reinforced compressed
earth block, with the use of glass fiber to stand against the mechanical properties of a concrete
hollow block. The process involves the development of a proportionate mix for the 18 samples
of compressed earth blocks and reinforcing them with glass fiber. Unreinforced compressed
earth block was also produced to study and validate the effect of the glass fiber. An improvised
pressing machine was used to form the compressed earth blocks. Concrete hollow blocks were
purchased and then filled with a mixture of cement, sand, and water. Compressive and flexural
strength tests were conducted at an accredited laboratory that conforms to the codes C67 and
C140 of the American Standards for Testing Materials (ASTM). Results of the compressive
and flexural strength test and cost were then compared between glass fiber-reinforced
compressed earth block and concrete hollow blocks. The results of this study highlighted
general trends in the mechanical properties of compressed earth blocks. These endeavours are
important to ensure that compressed earth block technology is recognized in the world of
building materials and be considered a reliable option for providing low-cost housing.

Keywords: compressed earth block, glass fiber, compressive strength, flexural strength,
concrete hollow block

I. INTRODUCTION

Concrete masonry units are vastly used in the construction industry nowadays.
Residential, commercial, school and other buildings, benefit from these building materials. An
estimated 30% of the world’s population live in a home constructed in earth [1]. Concrete
hollow block (CHB) is one of the masonry units that is considered for construction works
because of its accessibility, simplicity, and cost-effectivity. CHB is commonly produced by
using aggregates, cement, and water that are compacted into molds. In recent years, different
types of building materials are introduced and it enticed most civil engineers in the industry.
Structural engineers, once again, show interest on masonry and introduce ways of reinforcing
it.

Earth is the oldest building material known to man. Over the past years, people rely on
earth materials for the construction of primitive homes and structures. Molded earth blocks
have been in use for several thousands of years. These bricks are made by compressing a

1
mixture of sand, clay, and gravel. These bricks have been used in historical structures which
still stand today including those constructed during the Spanish colonial period such as
churches, fortifications, and stone houses. Since then, adobe bricks which are primarily from
volcanic tuff, have been commonly used as construction materials in the Philippines.

The compressed earth block (CEB) is the modern descendant of the molded earth block,
more commonly known as adobe block [6]. CEB is a building material made primarily from
damp soil compressed at high pressure to form blocks a and uses a mechanical press to form
blocks from earth materials added with a binder such as Portland cement. As years pass by,
house construction in the Philippines has now been more associated with CHB than CEB.

For over a few decades now, concrete masonry building has been one of the main
focuses of the Philippines’ construction industry. Because of this, few of the available
construction materials in the country are not fully utilized. The lack of information and
incorrect and abusive promotion of concrete hollow blocks are primarily the reasons why the
construction industry is not flourishing well.

One building material that is being ignored is the compressed earth block (CEB). The
continuous production of CHB made the CEB obsolete in the country’s construction industry.

There are many advantages of using CEB as a building material. On-site materials can
be used which result to reduced cost and shipping of materials and increased efficiency and
sustainability. Since the blocks are pressed, materials can be available after a short drying
period. Having the blocks uniform, simplifies construction and minimizes the need of mortar,
therefore reducing both labor and material costs.

CEB technology has been developed for low-cost construction. Therefore, this study
was conducted to analyze the mechanical characteristics of glass fiber-reinforced CEB as an
alternative to CHB.

The main objective of this research study is to assess the glass fiber-reinforced
compressed earth block as a substitute to concrete hollow block through the comparison of its
compressive strength and flexural strength. The reason behind incorporating fibers into
concrete is to increase the toughness and tensile strength and improve the cracking deformation
[10]. Specifically, the study addresses the following: (1) develop a design mix of compressed
earth block that utilizes the addition of glass fiber to produce a unit cost comparable to
commercially available blocks; (2) prepare samples of unreinforced compressed earth block
and glass fiber-reinforced compressed earth block with the same unit cost as conventional
CHB; (3) analyze and compare the compressive strength and flexural strength between glass
fiber-reinforced compressed earth block and concrete hollow block using standard testing
procedures.

This study has the potential to provide a better construction material that can be used
as a substitute to concrete hollow blocks. Therefore, this reduces the importing cost for cement.
Construction firms may benefit from the innovation and development of a construction
material. The production of compressed earth blocks may provide livelihood to Filipinos. The
introduction of a new material to the industry can help others to explore more about
construction fundamentals.

2
 This study focused on the comparative analysis between glass fiber-reinforced
compressed earth block and concrete hollow block. It is limited to the comparison of their
compressive strength and flexural strength. This study provides analysis on the effect of glass
fiber on compressed earth block. For economic comparison, this study provides data of the
costing of the material for CEB and CHB. Soil tested was only taken from one site at
Dasmariñas, Cavite for its properties and compatibility to CEB standards. All standard testing
procedures conforms to the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Due to lack
of resources, improvised pressing machine was used to produce the glass fiber-reinforced
compressed earth block. Lastly, this study provides assessment on the validity of the glass
fiber-reinforced compressed earth block as an alternative construction material.

II. METHODOLOGY

Materials and Samples Preparation

Materials Procurement

The researchers obtained soil samples from Dasmariñas, Cavite that were tested and
analyzed in the testing laboratory of Mapúa University, Intramuros, Manila. Also, they were
visual-manual tested at the site. The glass fiber used for this study was measured to have a
length of 50 to 60 mm and a thickness of 0.36 mm.

Glass fiber in concrete not only improves the properties of concrete and cuts costs, but
also presents an easy outlet to dispose the glass as environmental waste from the industry. It
has been shown that they are good reinforcing materials and can increase not only flexural
strength, but the impact strength as well [7].

It is discovered that the flexural strength of concrete with 1.5% of glass fiber exhibits
an increase in strength by almost 30%. Furthermore, observed is the reduction in slump with
the increase in glass fiber content [8].

The concrete hollow blocks that were filled with a mixture of cement, water, and sand
were the ones compared to the compressed earth block.

Soil Testing

For the specifications of the Compressed Earth Block, the researchers conducted
various visual-manual and laboratory experiments based on ASTM D2487, ASTM D422 and
ASTM D4318 to determine the properties of the soil from Dasmariñas, Cavite. The visual-
manual part of the experiment focused on the general properties of soil based on the ASTM
D2487. The laboratory experiment that covered the comprehensive analysis of the soil’s
properties were provided by ASTM D422 and ASTM D4318.

The classification for favorable soils must be < 6% linear shrinkage, or > 65% sand, or
PI < 15% [9]. The results from the following tests gave the researchers a wider understanding
on the composition and properties of the soil - an essential part in the production of the
Compressed Earth Blocks.

3
 Table 1. Result of Visual-Manual and Laboratory Test on Soil

Soil Properties Result

Color Dark Gray
Plasticity Medium
Moisture Content 29.82%
Liquid Limit 30%
Plastic Limit 22%
Plasticity Index 8
Soil Classification CL – Sandy Lean Clay

CEB and GFRCEB Production

Mixing

As shown in Figure 2, dry soils were run through a 2-mm. wire mesh sieve to remove
large grains of soil, and foreign materials that were mixed up with the soil. As shown in Table
2, the design mix used in the production of both CEB and GFRCEB was based on the tests
performed and CEB production manuals. For proportionate mix for compressed earth block,
the total content of clay and silt must not be less than 50% and the total water-soluble material
should not be 1% more by weight [11]. The stabilizer to be used must be the same with the
controlled variable to be used. The only difference between them is the addition of glass fiber
into the design mix. The researchers proceed in the mixing of the materials needed for the
production as shown in Figure 3. Before adding the water gradually, the soil and cement must
be mixed thoroughly to ensure that quality blocks would be produced. This process of using
shovel and spoon must be repeated over and over until all the measured water is well
incorporated in the mixture.

Table 2. Proportions of Compressed Earth Blocks

Mix Number Glass- Cement Wt. of Wt. Volume

Type of Fiber Content Cement of of
Samples Content (kg) Soil Water
(kg) (L)
1 20 0% 6% 20 120 15
2 20 2% 6% 20 120 15

4
 Figure 1. Sieving of Soil using a 2-mm. Wire Mesh

(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) Mixing of Unreinforced CEB; (b) Mixing of Glass Fiber-Reinforced CEB.

Compressing

Before compression, oil must be applied in the mold and palette to avoid the mixture
sticking to the compressing machine. Excess mixture left in the mold must also be scraped
down so as not to interfere in the production of a new block. For the compression of blocks,
the necessary force to be applied must not be too high or too low to avoid ruining the shape of
the Compressed Earth Block.

5
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. (a) Applying oil to the base of mold; (b) Pouring the mixture into the mold; (c)
Manual pressing using the Improvised Compressing Machine; (d) Ejecting the samples from
the machine.

Curing

The samples were stacked side by side in an elevated platform to avoid getting any
deformities on the sides and the bottom. They were exposed to air for a day and then fully
covered for seven days to make sure they retain their moisture content which is an essential
factor on their strength. After the 7th day, only the blocks’ top was covered for 14 to 28 days
to achieve their maximum strength. Seven days of curing for the compressed earth block is
enough for it to be used already. However, they attain their maximum strength and become
water resistant only after 28 days. [5].

6
 (a)

(b)

Figure 4. (a) Stacking and exposing the samples for one day; (b) Covering the samples with a
tarpaulin

Testing of Samples

The dimensions of the produced specimens are 24 x 18 x 10 mm. The testing for the
mechanical properties of the compressed earth blocks depends on ASTM C140 for the
compressive strength. ASTM C140 states the sampling and testing of concrete masonry units
for dimensions, compressive strength, absorption, unit weight, and moisture content [3]. In
addition, ASTM C67 covers the flexural strength test [4].

From the site in Dasmariñas, Cavite, the samples were transported to Mapúa University
for the testing. However, due to unforeseen conditions, the testing could not be done in the
school. To proceed with the testing, they were transported to ASTEC Materials Testing
Corporation, the nearest testing center. The testing center, however, only offers compressive
strength test for the blocks. The researchers then decided to commence the flexural strength
test of the Compressed Earth Blocks in 14, 21, and 28 days instead of 7, 14, and 28 days at
Mapúa University.

7
 (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

(f) (g)

(h)

Figure5. (a) Compressive Strength Test of CEB; (b) Compressive Strength Test of GFRCEB;
(c) Compressive Strength Test of 4” CHB; (d) Compressive Strength Test of 5” CHB; (e)
Flexural Strength Test of CEB; (f) Flexural Strength Test of GFRCEB; (g) Flexural Strength
Test of 4” CHB; (h) Flexural Strength Test of 5” CHB.

SAMPLE IF WITH THESIS HAS EQUATIONS:

Estimation of the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Curve Number (CN) parameter
were generated from the GIS procedure in the watershed model development based on the
landcover and soil type shapefiles and the SCS CN Table. Dimensionless curve number ranges
from 0 to 100For impervious surface and water surfaces, CN = 100 and for natural surfaces
CN is less than 100. Loss by initial abstraction (Ia) was estimated as in [11]:
8
 Ia = 0.2*S (1)

where,

S = (25400/CN)-254 (2)

Clark Unit Hydrograph’s time of concentration was computed using Kirpich Method
for grassy earth (mountain) in case not automatically computed in GIS:

Tc = 0.00032L0.77/S0.385 (3)
where,

L = the length of the river basin;

S = slope of the basin computed with the Longest Flow Path Layer.

Baseflow recession used ratio to peak of 0.5, initial discharge computed as the ratio of
the product of area of the specific subbasin and outflow at the outlet to the total watershed area.
Recession constant used was 1.0. For the routing, Muskingum-Cunge parameters used include
30m for the width, 45 degrees for the side-slope, and 0.04 for the Manning’s [3,4]. Rainfall
data used in the study were from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical
Services Administration (PAGASA) and Weather Philippines Foundation, Inc. (WPFI).

The river floodplains were modeled using HEC-RAS with the aid of HEC-GeoRAS in
GIS and Google Earth. Data needed were the LiDAR DEM’s of the floodplains, discharge data
at the project points, and shapefiles to define the river derived in Google Earth.

In ArcMap (ArcGIS), LiDAR DEM was loaded along with the shapefiles of the
centerline, left and right banks, and left and right flow paths. In the RAS Geometry tab of the
HEC-GeoRAS toolbar, RAS layers were created from the shapefiles. In GeoRAS, the cross-
sections were constructed using the Construct XS Cut Lines button in which the interval used
was 200m and the width was set to 2000m. In RAS Geometry, the above were exported as RAS
data.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Compressive Strength Results and Discussion

The compressive strength of the Compressed Earth Block behaves the same way as the
Concrete Hollow Block. However, the Glass-Fiber Reinforced Compressed Earth Block
experiences the opposite since its compressive strength is declining as the number of curing
day increases. Although the values of the compressive strength of the reinforced and
unreinforced Compressed Earth Blocks are definitely higher than the CHB samples from two
markets, it can be seen that the unreinforced blocks carry a higher amount of load. Table 3
shows the average result of compressive strength of the samples.

9
 Table 3. Average Result of Compressive Strength

Curing Compressive Compressive

Type Time Strength Strength
(Days) (Mpa) (Psi)
17 1.75 253.33
CEB 14 2.66 383.33
28 2.98 433.33
7 2.35 340
GFRCEB 14 2.59 373.33
28 2.32 336.47

4” CHB - 1.80 260.71

5” CHB - 2.22 321.62

In Figure 7, the graph of the unreinforced compressed earth block shows that as the
curing time increases, the higher the compressive strength becomes. On the other hand, the
graph of the reinforced compressed earth block shows an increase of compressive strength in
the early stages of the curing process.

Figure 6. 7th, 14th, and 28th Day Compressive Strength Comparison between CEB and
GFRCEB

As shown in Figure 8, the unreinforced compressed earth block has the highest
compressive strength of all the samples provided. The reinforced compressed earth block is the
second highest in the chart. Although lower than the unreinforced compressed earth block, the
reinforced compressed earth block is still higher than the commercial concrete hollow block
available in the market.

10
 Figure 7. 28th Day Compressive Strength Comparison

Flexural Strength Results and Discussion

Flexural strength of the concrete is the main factor on the deflection and cracking
behavior [2]. The cracks that are formed after testing is a proof that the concrete has gone past
its yielding point.

As shown in Table 4, the values of the flexural strength of the Compressed Earth Blocks
are definitely higher than those from the Concrete Hollow Block. On what can be seen from
the data above, the values of the flexural strength of the unreinforced CEB are fluctuating and
do not have a direct relationship with the curing time. The researchers noticed that it can also
be observed when it comes to the reinforced CEB. On the other hand, the flexural strengths of
the CHB from the two markets are not even close to the values of the CEB.

Table 4. Average Result of Flexural Strength

Curing Flexural Flexural

Type Time Strength Strength
(Days) (Mpa) (Psi)
14 0.99 143.10
CEB 21 0.76 110.71
28 0.60 99.11
14 1.11 161.47
GFRCEB 21 0.93 134.10
28 1.03 149.70

4” CHB - 0.51 74.33

5”CHB - 0.24 35.17

11
 In Figure 8, the graph shows the highest flexural strength is in the early stages of the
curing process. It also shows that the addition of glass fiber to the compressed earth block
increases its flexural strength.

Figure 8. 7th, 14th, and 28th Day Flexural Strength Comparison between CEB and GFRCEB

As shown in Fig 9, from the chart, the glass fiber-reinforced compressed earth block
possesses the highest flexural strength between all the samples. Addition of glass fiber to
compressed earth block has significantly increased its flexural strength and even higher than
that of the standard concrete hollow block available on the market.

12
 Figure 9. 28th Day Flexural Strength Comparison

Cost Analysis

Table 5 shows the cost estimation of both CEB and GFRCEB. For both mix types, one
cement of bag that cost around Php 198.00 can produce 40 samples, water cost was set at Php
1.50 per liter of water, and labor cost around Php 1.75 per block. In addition, for mix type no.
2, cost of glass fiber was around Php 70.91 per kilogram. Cost estimation per block for both
CEB and GFRCEB were based on the total cost used in the mix divided by the number of
samples of produced.

Table 5. Cost Estimation of Compressed Earth Blocks

Cost per
Cost of: Total Costs (Php)
Number of Block (Php)
Mix Type
Samples Labor
Glass-Fiber (Php) Cement (Php) Water (Php)
(Php)
1 40 0 198 10 70 278 6.95
17.9
2 40 439.65 198 10 70 717.65
5

As shown in Table 6, a 1x1 m surface area wall was considered. The 1x1 area was
divided by the surface area per block to calculate the blocks needed to build a 1x1 m surface
area wall. The blocks needed were then multiplied to the cost per block to compute the total
cost per sample. Due to the smaller surface area of the CEB and GFRCEB it cost more than
the standard CHBs.

13
 Table 6. 1m x 1m Surface Area Cost Comparison

Surface
Area per Cost per Blocks Total
Sample
Block Block Needed Cost
(sq. m)
CEB 0.044 6.95 23 159.85
GFRCEB 0.044 17.95 23 412.85
CHB 4” 0.08 12 13 156
CHB 5” 0.08 13 13 169

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The implication of this study is to compare and analyze the compressive and flexural
strength of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Compressed Earth Block (GFRCEB) and Concrete Hollow
Block (CHB). The results presented in this study provide important perceptions into the effect
of glass fiber on the flexural and compressive strengths of Compressed Earth Block (CEB). In
CEB and GFRCEB matrices, soil elements, fibers content, compaction effort, and curing
conditions all contribute to its mechanical properties. All these variables were kept constant
during the conduction of study to enable observation of the effect of glass fiber on the flexural
strength and compressive strength of CEB. For consistency and accuracy of the results, all the
tests for compressive strength were done at the ASTEC Materials Testing Corporation while
for the test of flexural strength was done at the UTM Laboratory of Mapúa University. Test
samples were GFRCEB, Unreinforced CEB, and CHB, readily available from two markets.

On average results at 28th day, Glass Fiber-Reinforced Compressed Earth Block

performed better, in both flexural and compressive strength, compared to the Concrete Hollow
Block. The recorded flexural and compressive strength values of GFRCEB were 1.03 MPa and
2.32 MPa, respectively. However, based on the results, the average compressive strength at
28th day of unreinforced CEB was pointedly higher than GFRCEB. The recorded values for
unreinforced CEB was 2.98 MPa, whereas with the GFRCEB, the result was 2.32 MPa. As for
the average flexural strength at 28th day, GFRCEB excelled significantly than unreinforced
CEB. The recorded values were 1.03 MPa and 0.68 MPa. It was observed and studied that the
glass fiber increases the flexural strength of the CEB but has an inverse effect on the
compressive strength of the CEB.

Evaluation of the cost estimates showed that the GFRCEB is more expensive than the
CHB. On average, the GFRCEB cost Php 17.95 while the CHB 4” and CHB 5” cost around
Php 10.00 and Php 11.50, respectively. However, Unreinforced CEB cost only Php 6.95
proving to be cheaper than both GFRCEB and CHB. As for the surface area cost comparison,
GFRCEB priced Php 412.85, the highest in comparison to unreinforced CEB and CHB.
Comparing unreinforced CEB that cost Php 159.85 to CHB 4” and CHB 5”, that cost Php
130.00 and Php 149.50, resulted to a difference of Php 29.85 and Php 10.35, respectively. It
was observed that the CHB was cheaper than both unreinforced CEB and GFRCEB.

Glass Fiber-Reinforced Compressed Earth Block exhibits higher flexural and

compressive strength than the Concrete Hollow Block, which allows for the conclusion that it
could be an alternative construction material. However, economic-wise, it is more expensive.
Unreinforced Compressed Earth Block, on the other hand, exhibits higher flexural and
14
compressive strength than the Concrete Hollow Block, thus also allowing for the conclusion
that it can be an alternative construction material, especially cost wise as it is cheaper than the
aforementioned. Based from the results obtained, the conclusion of this study was drawn. The
researchers recommend the glass fiber-reinforced compressed earth block as an alternative to
conventional concrete hollow block. However, further research may be conducted on the
material and its components to improve the resulting product. Other parameters aside from
compressive and flexural strength must be considered such as thermal insulation. Crucial
factors such as the nature of soil, availability of materials, and methods of production should
also be considered.

The researchers suggest taking note of the way of producing the specimen and pay close
attention to how the specimen is going to be cured. We strongly suggest using other types of
soil for a more comprehensive and accurate analysis on the compressed earth blocks. Having
different types of soil may give the differences on the results of the mechanical strengths. Using
different proportions of glass fiber can be significant on a more extensive study on the
mechanical strength of the Compressed Earth Blocks.

Developing a universal manual for standards and specifications on compressed earth

blocks would greatly contribute to the credibility of the material for use in construction and act
as a guideline for future researchers. A process of design for compressed earth blocks should
also be standardized to improve reliability of blocks produced and create needed design
strength. Conforming to a universal standard for compressed earth blocks would eliminate
discrepancies in regional variation and make compressed earth blocks truly competitive to
concrete masonry units.

REFERENCES
[1] Adam, E.A., Agib, A.R.A. (2001). Compressed Stabilised Earth Block Manufacture in
Sudan. Paris: Graphoprint.
[2] Ammed, M., Mallick, J., & Hasan, M. A. (2014). A study of factors affecting the flexural
tensile strength of concrete. Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences.
[3] ASTM. (2009). ASTM C140 Manual. United States, PA: ASTM International.
[4] ASTM. (2009). ASTM C67 Manual. United States, PA: ASTM International.
[5] Earth, D. (2016, August 31). What Soils Work for Compressed Earth Block Production?
Retrieved from Dwell Earth: https://dwellearth.com/what-soils-work-for-compressed-earth-
block-production/
[6] Guillaud, H., Joffroy, T., & Odul, P. (1995). Compressed earth blocks: Volume II. Manual
of design and construction. Eshborn Germany: Vieweg.
[7] Kanie, T., Fuiji, K., Arikawa, H., & Inoue, K. (1999). Flexural properties and impact
strength of denture base polymer reinforced with woven glass fibers. Dental Materials.
[8] Murthy, Y., Sharda, A., & Jain, G. (2012). Performance of Glass Fiber Reinforced
Concrete. International journal of engineering and innovative technology.

15
[9] Proto C., Sanchez D., Rowley K., Thompson R. (2010). ICEB: Design and Construction
Manual. Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo: Civil Engineering Senior Design.
[10] Rao, G., & Kunal, K. (2009). Strength & Ductility of RC Deep Beam. Journal of Structural
Engineering.
[11] Rigassi, V. (1985). COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS: MANUAL OF PRODUCTION
VOLUME I. Germany: Deutsches Zentrum für Entwicklungstechnologi

*Note ideal minimum number of references: for BS 20-30 references; for MS 50 references;
for PhD at least 100 references.

16
APPENDICES

17
 APPENDIX A
Thesis Manuscript Conventional Format

18
APPENDIX B

19
Other Information for the Thesis Manuscript:
Font Type: Times New Roman

Font Size: 12

Paper Size: all documents in A4

Page Margin: Left: 1.5” | Right, Top, and Bottom: 1.0”

Paragraph: 0.5 inch Indention, Justified Alignment

SINGLE SPACING for Journal paper and other documents for BOOKBINDING.

1.5 SPACING for manuscript documents for submission

to PANEL Members and Adviser.

PAGES should be at the bottom right corner. Do not display page# in Title Page.

NOTE that the Corresponding Author should be your ADVISER, therefore,

reflect the adviser’s email there with their knowledge.

20
Documents needed for FINAL DEFENSE and FINAL SUBMISSION:

[before Final Defense]

1. Four (4) copies of Conventional Format Manuscript (Chapter 1 to 5 and References)

individually clipped signed and approved for defense by adviser.

2. Filled up CEGE OBE Grading Forms

[after Final Defense]

1. Final Manuscript (NEW Journal Format) with Conventional Format in the Appendices for

BOOKBINDING.

2. Final Oral Examination BILLING FORM.

3. Official Receipt (O.R.) of BILLING

4. Poster in A3, laminated

5. English Editor certification for the Journal Paper only.

6. Turnitin Results bearing the title and authors of the document with Total less than 15%

and less than 1% for each item, for the Journal Paper only.

7. Conformity Form with signature of all panel members and adviser.

8. Proof of Submission of Journal Paper to Journal Publisher or Conferences that has

SCOPUS-indexed publication. Search first the name of Journal paper publisher/publication

and/or the Conference publication in www.scopus.com to be sure that you are submitting it to

a Scopus-indexed publisher. Submission is done by looking at the websites of journal

publishers or conferences and submitting your journal paper to their “link”. A copy of your

21
correspondence that your submission was received is needed for attachment in the

Appendices.

9. Proof in www.scopus.com that the journal publisher or publication (not your own journal

paper but the publisher or the publication e.g. Journal of Hydrology) where you submit your

journal paper is Scopus.

10. CD of all pertinent documents.

CD is composed of:

 Final Manuscript (new Journal Format) in Word with scanned ORIGINAL copy of

Approval Sheet signed already by the Dean.

 Final Manuscript (new Journal Format) in PDF with scanned ORIGINAL copy of

Approval Sheet signed already by the Dean. Make sure both Word and PDF matches

in pages and that there is no distortion of contents. Registrar double-checks randomly

and error in pages, for instance, will deny you of issuance of TOR.

 Final Defense Presentation in PPT

 Final Defense Presentation in PDF

 Scanned poster

 Scanned image of Billing Form both for the Proposal and Final Defense

 Scanned image of O.R. both for the Proposal and Final Defense

 Videoclip of Final Defense in .mp4 format containing at least the portion of Title

Page and NSDB.

22
SAMPLE Logo and CD Cover:

23
 MANUSCRIPTS

 For the Conventional Format Manuscript (with Title Page, Chapters 1 to 5 and
References) there is NO NEED to subject it to Turnitin and English Editor.

 For the New Journal Format Manuscript, only the JOURNAL

PAPER (10 to 20 pages) has to be subjected to Turnitin and English Editor.
This format is the final document that you have to bookbind. ONLY ONE (1) JOURNAL
PAPER IS REQUIRED.

Produce one (1) copy of the Bookbound Manuscript for CEGE Office but you may produce
more for your own. Final version of the “Article/Journal Paper” must be reproduced in seven
(7) copies (stapled and placed together in clear envelop) for CEGE and other MU offices.

The Journal/Article Type is the shortened version of the entire study containing
the HIGHLIGHTS found in the Conventional Format.
You are also required to submit the Journal Paper to a Journal Publisher or to a Conference that
is linked to a Journal Publisher via Internet submission depending on the instructions of the
publisher. The Journal Publisher is required to be Scopus-indexed. To know if it is Scopus-
indexed, search the Journal title in www.scopus.com. You need to provide screenshot of
communication with publisher with reply of receipt as PROOF of submission and the a
screenshot of the PROOF that shows it is in scopus. These will be included in the Appendices.
Example in www.scopus.com:

24
For details of Bookbinding COVER,

 Ask the Secretary of CEGE and see past SAMPLES in CEGE Library.
 Each PROGRAM has its own cover COLOR.
 You will also be given a Serial# for the document.
 When done with bookbinding, submit to the secretary for the Dean’s
Signature.

Additional Notes:
To be able to apply for COMPLETION OF GRADE:
1. Get 1st form from Registrar.
2. Present to Research Professor the following:
a. Photocopy of Billing Form (to be submitted to Research Professor)
b. Photocopy of O.R. (to be submitted to Research Professor)
c. completely signed Conformity of Revisions
3. Go back to Registrar and get 2nd Form and have it signed by Research Professor.
4. Submit to secretary of School of CEGE for Dean’s signature.

To be able to apply for WAIVER FOR GRADUATION:

1. Fill up form from secretary of CEGE.
2. Present to Research Professor the following:
a. Approval Sheet signed by all panel members and adviser.
b. all OBE Assessment Form completely filled up, graded, and signed.
c. O.R. of Bookbinding
d. O.R. of English Editor of the Journal Paper only
e. Turnitin Results of the Journal Paper
3. Submit to secretary of CEGE for Dean’s signature.

25